Download Ami Pro -

Xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation
Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on Xenotransplantation
to:
the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport
the Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries
No. 1998/01E, Rijswijk, 21 January 1998
Preferred citation:
Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on Xenotransplantation.
Xenotransplantation. Rijswijk: Health Council of the Netherlands, 1998; publication
no. 1998/01E.
All rights reserved
ISBN: 90-5549-220-5
Preface to the English edition
In a letter dated 31 December 1996, the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport asked
for information on the current level of knowledge concerning xenotransplantation. A
Committee on Xenotransplantation of the Health Council was formed to respond to the
Minister’s request. On 21 January 1998, I presented the Committee’s report to the
Minister. An English translation of my letter accompanying the report reads as follows:
On 31 December 1996 you asked for advice concerning the scientific, ethical and legal aspects of
xenotransplantation.
A Committee that I installed for this purpose drafted the report ‘Xenotransplantation’. Having
consulted the Standing Committees on Medicine and on Medical Ethics and Health Law I herewith present
you with this report.
The Committee concludes that xenotransplantation can be an alternative to transplantation of human
organs, tissues or cells. Results of animal experiments indicate good progress in adjusting the technique
for use in human patients. Nevertheless the Committee does not consider it possible to indicate when the
first clinical trials can be performed. In particular the possible transfer of pathogens from the animal
transplant to the human recipient and third parties is very worrisome. The Committee also suggests that,
before xenotransplants on human patients are performed, a public debate is held on whether such medical
treatments are desirable. I fully agree with these points of view, as I do also with the position that
transplantation of human organs is by far preferable to xenotransplantation.
The Committee also indicates the legal position of xenotransplantation and the legislative gaps with
respect to the technique. I would especially like to point at the recommendation, that was also given by the
Preface to the English edition
4
Gene Therapy Committee of the Health Council, to develop dedicated laws that lay down rules for the
quality and control of medical products being or consisting of living material (biologicals). I think that it is
of utmost importance that clear regulations be drafted pertaining to such modern biotechnological
developments.
Finally I would like to draw your attention to the recommendation of the Committee to give the
Central Committee, that will be formed within the framework of the Medical Research Involving Human
Subjects Act, the sole authority to judge on protocols for clinical xenotransplantation experiments. Also
because of the ethical questions relating to xenotransplantation, I feel it to be of great importance that a
central authority monitors the developments in this field and decides when experiments involving human
beings are justified.
The present publication contains the English translation of the full text of the
Committee’s report.
JA Knottnerus,
Vice-president
of the
Health Council of the Netherlands
Preface to the English edition
5
Contents
Executive summary 8
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Introduction 13
Background 13
Ministerial request and composition of the Committee 15
Structure of this report 15
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Reports published in other countries 17
The Nuffield Council of Bioethics 17
The Kennedy Committee 18
The Institute of Medicine 18
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
The state of science 20
Biomedical developments 20
Risk of infection 24
Conclusions 26
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
Social issues 29
The use of xenotransplantation in the treatment of humans 29
The use of animals 31
Solutions for the organ shortage 33
Contents
6
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
The legal position 37
The use of animals 38
Genetically modified organisms 39
Quality and safety of products and treatments 40
Patent law 44
6
Conclusions 46
References 49
A
B
Annexes 54
The request for advice 55
The Committee 57
Contents
7
Executive summary
Xenotransplantation is the transfer of organs from an animal of one species to an
animal of another species (or to a human being). The technique is seen as a possible
solution for the shortage of human donor organs caused by the fact that the demand for
organs is rising faster than the supply. In this report, a committee of the Health Council
of the Netherlands describes the present scientific status of xenotrans- plantation. A
number of ethical issues are also considered in relation to the desirability and
acceptability of research into and the possible clinical application of the technique. The
report additionally includes a brief summary of the legislation which is relevant in this
field.
The rejection of transplanted material is a major problem in relation to transplantations
in general and xenotransplantation in particular. The evolutionary differences between
humans and animals are sufficiently great that rejection begins within a few minutes,
except in cases where organs are being transplanted to humans from non-human
primates. Hyperacute rejection of this kind and the associated molecular processes are
nowadays quite well understood. It would appear that the problem could be solved by
effecting certain genetic modifications in the source animal, to make it more similar to
the recipient. However, once the hyperacute rejection stage is past, another form of
rejection manifests itself within a matter of days. The only way of preventing this
second kind of rejection is to use immunosuppressive agents — substances which
prevent or interfere with normal immune responses — in doses which are not
Executive summary
8
acceptable for humans because of the associated high risk for many and serious
complications. There is no obvious solution to this problem at present.
Difficulties also exist in relation to the way the transplanted organ functions in the
recipient’s body. Here again, solutions must be found before xenotransplantation
becomes a viable means of treating human patients.
At present, another obstacle to the use of xenotransplantation is the risk of
infection. It is conceivable that agents such as viruses could be transferred to the
recipient of the organ, causing disease. Indeed, once transferred to a human in this way,
a disease might even be passed on to other people. Scientists do not yet understand
anywhere near enough about the processes involved to enable them to estimate the
associated risks.
Uncertainty regarding the questions outlined above presently remains too great for
the Committee to reach any conclusion regarding the future viability of xenotransplantation as a clinical technique. Clinical experiments would not be appropriate until
there is a good chance of operative success and until the rejection problems have been
reduced to a level comparable with that currently associated with the transplantation of
organs from human donors. The risk of infection must also be reduced to an acceptable
level. To this end, there is a need for better understanding of the risk of pathogen
transfer and for ways of ensuring that organs are free from highly infectious pathogens. Greater certainty is required both in relation to pathogens capable of causing
relatively minor infections in large population groups (such as influenza viruses) and in
relation to pathogens capable of causing serious diseases in small groups.
It is important that the ethical acceptability of clinical xenotransplantation — both from
the human viewpoint and from the animal viewpoint — is considered while the
technique is still at an early stage of development.
If xenotransplantation becomes clinically viable, the technique will be capable of
alleviating the suffering of people with certain medical conditions and in many cases of
prolonging life. The Committee therefore believes that, from a human point of view,
xenotransplantation is ethically acceptable. Furthermore, the Committee is of the
opinion that the interests of the people who might benefit from the technique are
sufficient to justify the possible inconvenience to or infringement upon the integrity of
the animals concerned and that the breeding of genetically modified animals for
xenotransplantation purposes is therefore acceptable.
It is recognized that some people may, for cultural or religious reasons, disagree
with the Committee’s conclusions regarding the morality of using animals for
xenotransplantation or implanting animal organs into humans. The Committee would
consequently like to see information made available and the encouragement of public
debate on these matters.
Executive summary
9
In view of the safety risks associated with the possible transfer of infectious pathogens,
the Committee advises against obtaining organs from non-human primates for the time
being. Scientific developments tend to suggest that the pig is currently the most
suitable source animal for xenotransplantation.
The Committee considers it acceptable that pigs are kept in conditions appropriate
for the breeding of specified pathogen-free (SPF) animals, provided that due
consideration were given to the animals’ welfare. The breeding of pathogen-free
animals is complicated by the presence of endogenic viruses, i.e. viruses which are part
of the host’s genetic make-up and therefore not easy to eradicate. Recent research
suggests that such viruses could make the transition from pig to man, but it is not yet
clear whether they would cause disease in humans.
All possible avenues must be explored in the search for a way of ensuring that the
demand for replacement organs is met. The Committee believes that the best course by
far is to increase the supply of organs from human donors. In this context, great
importance is attached to information campaigns, both aimed at the public and aimed at
the medical professions. While welcoming the publicity activities organized in the
framework of the revised Organ Donation Act, the Committee doubts whether these or
other statutory activities will be sufficient to end the present shortage. Other options,
such as gene therapy and artificial organs, are not expected to provide a solution in the
short term, i.e. within the next few years. Preventive measures could reduce the
incidence of organ function loss, but are not thought likely to reduce the demand for
organs sufficiently. Indeed, as the population ages, the demand for organs is only likely
to increase.
The report’s brief summary of existing and future legislation pertinent to
xenotransplantation indicates that not all relevant issues are or will be adequately or
appropriately covered.
The use of animals is addressed by the Animal Health and Welfare Act, which
regulates among others that the performance of biotechnological procedures, including
genetic modification, is subjected to licensing based on an ethical judgement of the
Biotechnology in Animals Committee. However, the Act does not control
experimentation with (source) animals bred in other countries. The Committee
therefore proposes to modify the Act in such a way that this is taken care of. As long as
this is not the case the Committee asks scientists to take their social responsibility and
to voluntarily present such experiments to the Biotechnology in Animals Committee.
Organs from genetically modified source animals and the recipients of such organs
are covered by the legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This
legislation is designed to protect the environment and human health from any adverse
Executive summary
10
effects which the production or use of GMOs might have. If clinical xenotransplantation were to become a reality, the recipient of a genetically modified animal
organ would be regarded under this legislation as the carrier of a GMO. As such, the
recipient would come within the scope of the Environmentally Hazardous Substances
Act and the associated regulations. The Committee considers this undesirable, as this
body of law was not formulated with medical applications in mind; it is intended to
protect the population at large, rather than the health of individual patients. The
Committee would therefore like to see the recipients of genetically modified animal
organs explicitly excluded from the scope of the Act.
Furthermore, the Committee recommends most strongly that agreement should be
sought within the EU regarding the application of GMO regulations in a way which
specifically addresses the issues surrounding xenotransplantation.
According to the Committee, the government should act before clinical experimentation begins, to protect individual patients and public health against the risks
associated with xenotransplantation, in particular the risk of possible pathogen transfer.
One of the first requirements is further research into the risk of cross- infection between
species. The government could then, on the basis of the results of this research,
introduce organ quality requirements. It might also be appropriate for the government
to impose specific quality requirements on all aspects of treatment associated with
transplantation, in order to limit the risk of infection from unknown pathogens.
The expectation is that animal organs for xenotransplantation will be supplied on a
commercial basis. It is therefore important that quality requirements applicable to such
organs are included in product regulations. The Committee advises taking the
necessary action before clinical experimentation begins. Given that the trade in organs
will in all probability be international, the Committee is strongly in favour of uniform
product quality standards, at least within Europe.
In the Committee’s judgement, the Netherlands’ existing medical product
regulations are not adequate to regulate the trade in organs for xenotransplantation,
mainly because they do not contain the desired quality standards or quality control
requirements. The Committee therefore wishes to see new legislation introduced
covering medical products that consist at least partly of living material (biologicals).
This legislation should include quality standards for biological products in general and
for particular product types. A new act could also serve as a vehicle for the
harmonization of existing rules and the regulation of otherwise neglected areas. As
indicated earlier, the quality standards included in any such legislation should be
agreed with the Netherlands’ European partners.
While recognizing that new legislation of the kind described cannot be introduced
in the short term, the Committee would like to see regulations brought in quickly to
Executive summary
11
cover xenotransplantation involving human beings. It is accordingly suggested that, as
an interim solution, organs for xenotransplantation should be brought within the scope
of the legislation on medicines. Until the introduction of European quality standards,
this move should be agreed with other EU member states.
The (forthcoming) Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act will cover
clinical xenotransplantation experiments and appears to provide a sound basis for the
supervision of such activities. It is suggested that only the central ethical review
committee (CeCo) whose establishment is provided for by the Act should have the
authority to review protocols for research involving human xenotransplantation. As a
national body, the CeCo would be well placed to monitor developments in this field.
The existing Hospital Provision Act does not lend itself easily to governmental
control of clinical xenotransplantation. However, it would be possible to ban
xenotransplantation or to introduce compulsory licensing under the Exceptional
Medical Procedures Act that recently came in force. The Act could also be used to
impose a moratorium.
Any patient offered an animal organ should be properly informed about the
proposed procedure, and no xenotransplant operation should be performed without the
recipient’s informed consent. The information given to potential recipients should
highlight the possibility of pathogen transfer and the consequent need for continual and
extensive monitoring following the operation. Since an infection could be passed on to
people with whom the transplant patient has contact, the health of such individuals
would also have to be monitored. The voluntary and informed cooperation of the
patient’s friends and relatives is therefore an important aspect of the xenotransplant
operation. Registration of the data collected during the postoperative checks is an
essential prerequisite; there may, however, be problems reconciling public health
interests with the individual’s right of privacy. Nevertheless, it should always be made
clear that further direct contact between the patient and anyone who declines to
cooperate in this regard would not be possible. Furthermore, during the clinical
experimentation phase at least, it will be necessary to restrict the number of people with
whom a patient has contact following a transplant operation, so as to keep the
postoperative monitoring programme to tolerable proportions. As a result, the organ
recipient’s freedom of movement will need to be restricted. Xenotransplant operations
should not be made generally available until these problems are manageable.
Executive summary
12
.
Chapter
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
Loss of organ function is a major cause of illness and death. Increasingly, it is possible
to treat such function loss by implanting an organ, part of an organ or certain organ
cells, usually taken from a deceased human donor. However, demand for organs, which
already exceeds supply, is rising. By way of example, Figure 1 shows how the number
of people waiting for kidney transplants has risen in the area covered by Eurotransplant
(Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Austria and Luxembourg).
In 1995, 384 kidney transplant operations were performed in the Netherlands using
organs from deceased donors (post-mortem transplants) and a further ninety-six
patients received kidneys from living donors (usually relatives). At the end of 1995,
1703 people were waiting to receive kidneys. In the same year, there were forty-eight
heart transplants, although sixty-seven patients were referred for such operations
(Cou97).
The most appropriate replacement for a malfunctioning or non-functional organ is
currently an organ from a human donor; and by far the best way of tackling the
shortage in donor organs is to increase the supply. Nevertheless, as long as a shortage
exists, it is important to look for alternatives. Broadly speaking, there are two possible
alternatives to human donor organs: man-made implants (e.g. artificial hearts) and
animal organs. The transfer of organs from one species to another is known as
Introduction
13
16000
Number of transplant operations
14000
Number of patients awaiting transplant operations
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1969
1973
1977
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1971
1975
1979
1981
1982
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Figure 1 The length of the Eurotransplant kidney waiting list on 31 December each year and the number of kidney transplant
operations performed each year, between 1969 and 1995. The growing number of people waiting for transplants is due partly to
loosening of the referral criteria and partly to the increase in re-transplantation. (Source: Coh95)
xenotransplantation (xenos = foreign). Transplantation between two humans is also
referred to as allotransplantation (allos = other).
The xenotransplantation of animal organs to humans is problematic for various
reasons. First, the body naturally rejects tissue from another species. The farther
removed the source animal* is in evolutionary terms, the more violent the rejection.
However, recent scientific research has indicated that rejection phenomena can be
reduced to a certain extent by genetically modifying the source animals. Second,
xenotransplantation is potentially hazardous: organs taken from animals may contain
pathogens which, even if they have no adverse effect upon the health of the source
animal, are capable of causing disease in humans. It is possible that a disease
transferred in this way might be contagious, i.e. capable of passing from the recipient
of an animal organ to other humans. The nature and seriousness of such risks are not
known. Third, doubt exists as to whether an animal organ would, in functional terms,
be capable of replacing a human organ. The greater the evolutionary difference
between the source species and homo sapiens, the greater the likelihood of significant
physiological differences in organ function. Fourth, the ethical, legal and social
*
It would not be appropriate to refer to an animal from which an organ is taken for transplantation as a donor animal,
since donation is a voluntary act. Clearly no animal used for xenotransplantation can consent to participation.
Introduction
14
acceptability of xenotransplantation is open to question. Is it acceptable to genetically
modify animals with a view to using them to provide organs for human patients? And
is a person’s human integrity compromised if his or her life depends on an organ taken
from an animal? Finally, it is unclear whether the law as it stands forms an adequate
framework for regulating biomedical developments in the field of xenotransplantation.
For several years, the pharmaceutical industry and other interested parties have done a
great deal to secure progress in this field. As a result, the issues associated with
xenotransplantation have a very international nature. Genetically modified —
transgenic — source animals are bred (usually for commercial purposes) only in a
small number of countries around the world. Consequently, international trade in such
animals or their organs will inevitably develop. Under such circumstances, it is not
always possible to regulate this trade using national legislation alone.
In recent years, partly as a result of the business community’s involvement, scientists
have made considerable progress in their efforts to reduce certain rejection phenomena
which occur immediately after xenotransplantation. The publicity given to these
developments has generated a great deal of public interest in xenotransplantation
(Ano96, Lai96, Mor96, Nas95). Many patients see xenotransplantation as a potential
cure for their problems and are pressing for the acceleration of scientific developments
(Rog96). At the same time, the existence of commercial interests means that there is a
danger of scientific information being suppressed for reasons of industrial politics. This
makes it more difficult to obtain a proper, up-to-date overview of the present state of
affairs in this field.
1.2
Ministerial request and composition of the Committee
In view of the circumstances outlined in section 1.1, the Minister of Health, Welfare
and Sport asked the Health Council to prepare a report on the subject of
xenotransplantation. The text of the Minister’s request is reproduced in Annex A.
On 13 January 1997, the Council’s vice-president established a Committee on
Xenotransplantation (referred to in this report simply as ‘the Committee’), whose remit
was to prepare a report, as requested by the Minister. The members of the Committee
are listed in Annex B.
1.3
Structure of this report
In this report, the Committee addresses the questions posed by the Minister and makes
certain recommendations regarding resolution of the problems identified. In Chapter 2,
a number of relevant reports published in other countries are discussed. The most
Introduction
15
significant biomedical developments are then reviewed in Chapter 3, which also
describes the rejection and infection problems associated with xenotransplantation. The
following chapter deals with various animal and human welfare issues central to the
debate on the social acceptability of xenotransplantation. Alternative ways of meeting
the demand for replacement organs are also briefly considered. Chapter 5 is devoted to
existing and proposed legislation pertinent to the various developmental stages: animal
testing, experiments with humans and ultimately general clinical application. In the
sixth and final chapter, the Committee presents its conclusions regarding the
desirability of xenotransplantation.
Introduction
16
Chapter
2
Reports published in other countries
In 1996 and 1997, three important reports were published on the subject of
xenotransplantation: two in the United Kingdom and one in the United States. These
reports helped to inspire the deliberations upon which the present report is based. The
principal conclusions of the three foreign reports are discussed below.
2.1
The Nuffield Council of Bioethics
The UK’s Nuffield Council of Bioethics concluded that it was ethically acceptable to
breed and use pigs for xenotransplantation purposes, but not primates (Nuf96). The
Council highlighted the risk of pathogen transfer and strongly urged the authorities to
take appropriate preventive action. The report’s main recommendation was the creation
of an Advisory Committee on Xenotransplantation with a wide-ranging remit:
collecting data on the risk of disease transfer and drawing up rules to minimize such
risks, formulating guidelines on the medical supervision of xenotransplant recipients
and the maintenance of a register of recipients, authorizing experiments with human
subjects, determining the effects of xenotransplant operations on the patient and
promoting debate on the issue. The Council recommended a moratorium on
experiments with human subjects until the Advisory Committee had been set up and
allowed to consider the acceptability of such experiments.
Reports published in other countries
17
2.2
The Kennedy Committee
At about the same time that the Nuffield Council’s report appeared, an Advisory Group
on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation (otherwise known as the Kennedy Committee) set
up by the British government completed its own deliberations (Ken96). Nothing was
made public for a further six months, however, to allow the government to consider its
response to the Committee’s recommendations (Gov97). When they ultimately
appeared, the Kennedy Committee’s findings were largely in line with those of the
Nuffield Council. The use of pigs as a source of organs for xenotransplantation was
judged acceptable, as was the genetic modification of pigs with a view to reducing
organ rejection problems. The Kennedy Committee considered it inadvisable to use
primates as source animals, however, partly for emotional reasons, but mainly because
of the greater risk of pathogen transfer. Experiments involving human subjects were
not considered acceptable until more was known about the suppression of rejection
phenomena and the risk of pathogen transfer. The Kennedy Committee echoed the call
for a central body to supervise developments and to decide when clinical experiments
should be allowed. The British government accepted the Committee’s
recommendations and duly established the UK Xenotransplantation Regulatory
Authority (Ano97, Gov97, Nas97). A moratorium on the xenotransplantation of organs
into humans was also announced.
2.3
The Institute of Medicine
Towards the end of 1996, the US Institute of Medicine published a report which
recommended that the existing local Institutional Review Boards should be given
responsibility for the assessment and supervision of xenotransplantation experiments
(IOM96). The Institute envisaged making appropriate provisions under the federal
regulations, which were published in draft form around the same time by the Public
Health Service (PHS) (PHS96). The IoM placed considerable emphasis on the
prevention of pathogen transfer and suggested that, once sufficient scientific progress
had been made and the necessary safety measures were in place, the xenotransplantation of animal organs into humans would be justified and should therefore be
permitted.
Like the IoM report, the PHS’s draft guidelines firmly underlined the importance
of safety. Even so, the document received a great deal of comment and criticism,
especially on the issue of safety. In one response, forty-four scientists (most of them
virologists) signed a letter stating that the use of primates as source animals was not
acceptable because of the risk of pathogens being transferred to xenotransplant
Reports published in other countries
18
patients, and the consequent risk of causing serious illness (Ben97). The PHS’s
assumption that it was sufficient to make provision for the early detection of any
symptoms of disease was criticized on the grounds that by the time problems were
detected, the damage had already been done. Some commentators were also unhappy
with the suggestion that the (local) Institutional Review Boards should have the final
word on whether xenotransplantation experiments with human subjects were to be
allowed. It was felt that a central committee could summon greater expertise and would
have a better overview of developments in the field. Perhaps predictably, the draft
guidelines were criticized from the other side by transplant surgeons, who argued that
the guidelines amounted to excessive government interference. A revised draft is
expected from the PHS in early 1998.
Reports published in other countries
19
Chapter
3
The state of science
3.1
Biomedical developments
3.1.1
Rejection
One of the main problems associated with transplantation is the process of rejection,
whereby the recipient’s immune system is activated and attacks the implanted foreign
organ or tissue. The violence of the response is determined partly by the degree of
difference between the tissue characteristics of the donor and those of the recipient and
partly by the nature of the transplanted organ or tissue. For example, the transplantation of a (non-vascular) cornea barely provokes any immune response, while a
transplanted kidney is liable to be violently rejected.
Immunological rejection, which is brought about by white blood cells (lymphocytes), takes several forms. First, there is rejection involving the production of
antibodies by B-lymphocytes and their release into the blood; this process is known as
humoral rejection. Antibodies can attack structures on the blood vessel endothelium
(the cells which line the inner walls of the blood vessels) of a transplanted organ,
thereby causing inflammation. Certain so-called complement system proteins
circulating in the blood play an important role in this process. Complement proteins
can also cause inflammation themselves, without the involvement of antibodies, by
reacting with the blood vessel endothelium (see also 3.1.3). In either case, the result
can be rejection of the transplant within a matter of hours or even minutes. Such
rejection is known as hyperacute rejection. Another kind of rejection is caused by
The state of science
20
T-lymphocytes: white blood cells which, once activated, can directly attack the cells of
the foreign tissue, again resulting in inflammation. This form of rejection, known as
cellular rejection, takes place over a period of days or months: acute and delayed acute
rejection, respectively.
3.1.2
Xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation is the transplantation of living material (cells, tissues, organs or
parts of organs) from an organism of one species into an organism of another species.
So far, research into the clinical viability of cellular xenotransplantation has focused
mainly on the islets of Langerhans (with the aim of restoring insulin production in
diabetes patients) (Gro94, Now94) and on brain cells (e.g. the transplantation of pig
fetal brain cells into patients with Parkinson’s disease, which involves function loss in
certain brain tissues) (Dea97, Din97).
The organs in which xenotransplantation researchers are most interested are the
kidneys, heart, lungs and, to a lesser extent, the liver and pancreas. A successful
xenotransplant operation — i.e. one which resulted in the restoration of adequate organ
function without serious rejection problems — would represent a major clinical
breakthrough. However, while considerable success has been achieved in certain fields,
it will be apparent from the paragraphs which follow that there is no immediate
prospect of successfully transplanting an animal organ into a human being.
In this report, the Xenotransplantation Committee focuses on the xenotransplantation of organs. Nevertheless, the issues addressed (both the practical issues, such
as rejection and infection risk, and the ethical or legal issues) relate equally to the
xenotransplantation of cells or tissues.
3.1.3
Discordance and concordance
The degree of similarity between species determines the violence of the rejection
process. In this context, a distinction is made between relatively dissimilar species
(discordant species), such as humans and pigs, and relatively similar species
(concordant species), such as humans and non-human primates (Mar94). Where
discordant species are involved, the greatest obstacle to successful xenotransplantation
has so far been hyperacute rejection, in which the complement system plays a key role.
Complement, which is part of the humoral rejection system, consists of a series of
consecutively activated blood-borne proteins (Law96). The binding of one of the first
proteins in the complement series to the blood vessel endothelium (with or without the
mediation of an antibody) triggers a complex process of complement protein binding
and activation. This ultimately induces inflammation and would cause hyperacute
The state of science
21
rejection in a xenotransplant recipient. Although the blood vessel endothelium is
provided with complement-regulating proteins, which protect the blood vessel wall
against complement activation, these are species-specific: they do not provide
protection against the complement system of another species. Complement-regulating
proteins appear to be the key to the problem of hyperacute rejection (Bha97, Dia97,
Dor97, Kro97, Law96, Law97, War97, Zai97).
Xenotransplantation between concordant species would not cause problems with
complement activation or, therefore, with hyperacute rejection. Thus, non-human
primates would seem the best source animals for organ xenotransplantation.
3.1.4
Primates as source animals
Despite the advantages, there are a number of objections to using non-human primates
as source animals.
First, the use of primates would create moral and legal problems. These are
considered in chapters 4 and 5.
In addition, there are significant differences in body size and life expectancy. The
heart of an adult baboon, for instance, would not have sufficient capacity to circulate
blood around the body of an adult human, which would typically be twice as heavy. It
is not known whether a baboon heart could grow or provide adequate life expectancy if
given to a child.
Another important reason for not using primates as source animals is the risk of
pathogens being transferred to the recipient and possibly via the recipient to other
people. The likelihood of pathogen transfer is much greater between concordant
species than between discordant species. Both HIV and the Marburg virus originated in
primates, and serve as examples of the potential threat to human health. This particular
safety problem is considered more closely in section 3.2.
3.1.5
Pigs as source animals
In view of the objections outlined above, researchers have for several years
concentrated on the pig as a possible source of organs. Pig organs are similar in size to
human organs, although pigs do not generally live as long as people. Another
advantage is that pigs, unlike non-human primates, can be bred in large numbers
relatively quickly.
Since pigs and humans are discordant species, hyperacute rejection would be the
first obstacle to the use of pigs as source animals for xenotransplantation. Thereafter,
there would be the problem of acute and delayed acute rejection in the period from a
few days to a few months after transplantation. Finally, the possibility of chronic
The state of science
22
rejection (which can occur several months or even years after transplantation) would
have to be addressed. Animal experiments suggest that acute and chronic rejection are
generally much more violent and serious after xenotransplantation than after
allotransplantation (Bha97, War97, Zai97).
Before pigs can be considered suitable source animals, not only must the question
of rejection be addressed, but it must also be established that a pig organ can
adequately take over the function of a human organ. Pig organs transplanted into
non-human primates have not always functioned properly. With the heart, the main
problem is size; if the new organ is too small, it will not be able to pump enough blood
around the body, but if it is too big (assuming it will even fit in the rib cage), it will
pump too much blood, possibly leading to hyperaemia and oedema in the lungs and
thus to loss of lung function (Sch97). Following the transplantation of discordant
kidneys, anaemia is often a problem, because the new organs tend not to form enough
of the hormone erythropoietin, which regulates the production of red blood cells
(Koz97). Other researchers have observed that, when implanted in other species, pig
kidneys do not always properly regulate blood concentrations of electrolytes such as
sodium, potassium and calcium ions, which are important to the proper functioning of
the body (Ham97a). Given the complexity of many liver functions, it is unlikely that a
pig’s liver could permanently take over from a human liver without function loss.
However, the liver of a genetically modified pig has recently been used in isolation
outside the body of a patient to give temporary assistance in a case of acute liver failure
(Day97, Rog97).
Over the last few years, a number of experimental treatments have been performed,
in which (fetal) pig islets of Langerhans were transplanted into humans. While
rejection problems were successfully controlled by the use of high doses of
immunosuppressing drugs, the amount of insulin produced was barely measurable
(Tib97). It is worth noting that insulin from pigs was successfully administered to
diabetics for decades before insulin produced with biotechnological methods became
available.
3.1.6
Genetic modification
Significant progress has recently been made towards resolving the problem of
hyperacute rejection.
First, the human genes which provide the code for various complement-regulating
proteins were identified and isolated. Once this had been done, molecular biological
techniques were used to introduce the relevant genes to pigs (Coz95). The process of
transferring genes in this way is called transgenesis. Pigs whose genes have been
modified in this way — transgenic pigs — carry human proteins which function just as
The state of science
23
they do in people. Transgenic pigs with several human complement-regulating proteins
are being bred in various countries (Bac97, Law97).
Another approach to the hyperacute rejection problem that is under investigation
involves modifying certain cell membrane protein sugar groups, which act as
recognition points for complement proteins, so that recognition is either prevented or
impaired (LaV95, Pla95, Vau94). This kind of genetic modification is not transgenesis, since it does not involve the transfer of genetic material from one species to
another. Researchers are now seeking to effect the same membrane protein sugar group
modification in the transgenic pigs referred to above.
In very recent experiments, hyperacute rejection proved to be significantly reduced
when the organs (hearts or kidneys) of transgenic pigs were transplanted to primates
(Bha97, Dia97, Kro97, Law97, Zai97). Even so, immunosuppressant drugs were
required in very high doses — up to ten times the maximum permitted for humans. The
drugs were needed to control acute and delayed acute (cellular) rejection. Despite the
success in controlling hyperacute rejection, it has not been possible to keep a primate
alive with a functional pig’s heart or kidney for longer than about three months. In
cases where the organ was not rejected in an acute cellular response, the recipient
animals died as a result of complications associated with the drastic immune
suppression treatment (Bha97, Dia97, Zai97).
3.2
Risk of infection
From the survey above, it will be apparent that xenotransplantation still involves
considerable risk for the recipient: not only may the transplanted organ fail to function
or to function properly as a result of rejection or some other cause, but the immunosuppressing therapy necessary to prevent rejection may itself be hazardous. In addition
to these risks, there is the danger that an infection could be transferred from the source
animal to the recipient. Indeed, the threat of infection is particularly great because of
the need to suppress the patient’s immune responses. One must also bear in mind the
fact that such infections may not be confined to the recipient. Contact between the
patient and his or her environment may result in the disease spreading through the
general public.
At present, only non-human primates and genetically modified pigs are under
consideration as source animals for use in xenotransplantation. The following
discussion of infection risks is therefore restricted to these animals.
Whether non-human primates or pigs are used as source animals, xenotransplantation involves a high risk of human recipients becoming infected by known
pathogens, in particular viruses. There is also a risk of infection by potentially
pathogenic (micro)organisms or other, as yet unidentified, pathogens (All96, Cha95).
The state of science
24
3.2.1
Primates
In relation to human beings, non-human primates are concordant animal species. It is
therefore probable that the use of such animals for xenotransplantation purposes would
entail a considerably greater risk of infection than the use of discordant source animals.
For this reason, the Committee believes that clinical experiments involving the use of
primates as source animals are not presently justified.
On the other hand, the xenotransplantation of primate organs into humans would
not induce such serious rejection problems as the introduction of pig organs. Thus,
primates may be regarded as more suitable source animals. The Committee does not
therefore rule out the use of primates as a matter of principle; if the xenotransplantation
of pig organs should prove impractical, the situation might have to be reconsidered.
Before using primates for such purposes, however, the ethical considerations must be
explored (see 4.2.2). If it should be judged acceptable to use primates as source
animals, organs should be taken only from specified pathogen-free (SPF) animals.
3.2.2
Pigs
Transplantation between discordant species (such as pigs and humans) does carry a risk
of pathogen transfer, albeit smaller than the risk of pathogen transfer between
concordant species.
The health risks associated with parasitic, bacterial and fungal infections could
probably be reduced to acceptable levels by operating efficient elimination programmes
and keeping the animals under conditions which preclude the reintroduction of such
infections. To this end, it would be necessary to develop and implement a good
husbandry practice (GHP) regime which entailed retaining the animals within a barrier
system. Such a regime would also have to provide for regular testing to check for the
presence of infections (as an assurance of the source animals’ SPF status) and for an
accompanying registration system. However, one could never exclude the possibility
that an SPF animal was carrying a pathogen whose nature and significance for human
health could not be accurately estimated.
In relation to the xenotransplantation of pig organs, viral infections represent by far the
greatest risk, as well as being the hardest to quantify or prevent.
Although it is possible to breed pigs which are free of particular pathogens, at least
two problems exist which cannot yet be satisfactorily resolved (Swi96). First, there is
the problem of viruses which scientists are not (yet) able to eliminate, such as
endogenic retroviruses. The genetic material of these viruses is contained within the
The state of science
25
genome of the host, making it very difficult to remove. In vitro experiments have
shown that endogenic retroviruses from pigs can infect human cells (LeT97, Pat97).
The second problem is that new viruses are emerging all the time, so that no test
programme can ever be comprehensive.
In most cases, little is known about the extent to which pig viruses represent a
threat to human health. Nevertheless, it may be assumed that the risk to patients
experiencing prolonged exposure to such viruses through xenotransplantation while
their immune responses are being suppressed would be relatively high. Antibodies to
various pig viruses have been detected in the blood of patients who had received a
kidney from a human donor and islets of Langerhans from a pig. However, none of the
patients had developed symptoms of any associated illness (Tib97).
Clearly, there is a risk of pathogenic viruses being transferred to the recipient, and
of then being passed on to the recipient’s environment. A further worry is that, partly
as a result of immune suppression treatment, a xenotransplant recipient is an ideal
environment within which viruses can adapt (by mutation or recombination with
viruses already carried by the host) to infect humans. By such processes, initially
harmless viruses can become a threat to human health.
The likelihood of prion infections being transferred to humans by the
xenotransplantation of pig organs is probably quite small, certainly if a GHP regime
and SPF animals are used. Furthermore, it would only be the recipient who was at risk,
since there is at present no evidence that prions can be transferred by contact between
individuals. From what we know of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or ‘mad
cow disease’) and its human equivalent, Creutzfeld-Jacob’s disease, it appears that
prion diseases only manifest themselves after quite long incubation periods. So the
recipient of an animal organ would only be at risk if he or she lived for a considerable
time following the transplant operation. In any case, prion diseases are presently
unknown in pigs. On the other hand, medical science currently offers very limited
scope for the detection of such diseases, certainly during the incubation period. It
would therefore be necessary to establish special prion monitoring programmes in
order to assure the SPF status of source animals. This would have to involve the
histopathological examination of brain tissues from randomly selected animals.
Research into the transfer of prions between pigs would probably be needed as well.
3.3
Conclusions
Xenotransplantation has yet to progress beyond the experimental stage. However, rapid
advances have been made over the last few years. It now appears possible to prevent
hyperacute rejection by genetically modifying the source animal so that it carries
The state of science
26
certain proteins found in the recipient. Nevertheless, solutions must still be found to the
problems of acute and chronic cellular rejection, which are much more serious with
xenotransplantation than with allotransplantation. Cellular rejection can presently only
be controlled using immunosuppressing medication in doses which would be
unacceptable for human patients, because of the risk of numerous and serious
complications.
Even if the rejection problems can be overcome, doubt remains as to whether an
animal organ could function properly in a human recipient. There is evidence that the
functionality of xenotransplanted pig organs cannot always be relied upon.
Given the considerations outlined above, the Committee believes that the clinical
xenotransplantation of whole organs, even on an experimental basis, would currently
be premature. The likelihood of success would be too small. It is unclear how soon
clinical application might be in order. However, experimental xenotransplant
operations should not be performed until there is a reasonable prospect of success, and
certainly not until the risk of rejection has been reduced to a level comparable with that
associated with allotransplantation.
Furthermore, the Committee is of the opinion that experiments involving the
clinical xenotransplantation of whole organs, or indeed of cells or tissues, would be
inappropriate at the present time, since insufficient guarantees could be made regarding
the safety of the recipient or the protection of public health. For similar reasons, the
Committee is for the time being against other applications involving close contact
between an animal organ and a human, such as the use of a pig’s liver located outside
the patient’s body to take over his or her liver function pending the availability of a
human organ for transplantation. Clinical application should be deferred until
preclinical studies can provide a better understanding of the infection risks and the
means by which such risks may be minimized. The Committee would particularly like
to see the following undertaken:
a detailed inventory of pig viruses
research into the possibility of eradicating from pigs persistent viruses, including
endogenic retroviruses
research into the transfer of pig viruses to non-human primates and humans and
into the implications for the health of the new host
definition of a good husbandry practice regime and the arrangements for
monitoring the specified pathogen-free status of genetically modified pigs intended
for use as source animals.
Even if research should in due course indicate that, provided certain precautions were
taken, the risk of infection could be reduced considerably, uncertainty would always
The state of science
27
exist regarding the threat from unknown infectious agents. Consequently, it will never
be possible to estimate the level of infection risk very accurately. The potential benefits
of xenotransplantation will have to be weighed up against the estimated infection risk
to the individual patient, to his or her contacts and possibly to the general public. Any
such assessment should take into account both pathogens capable of causing relatively
minor illnesses in large numbers of people (e.g. influenza viruses), and pathogens
which might cause serious disease in a small group of people.
The state of science
28
Chapter
4
Social issues
4.1
The use of xenotransplantation in the treatment of humans
4.1.1
Acceptability
When considering the arguments for and against xenotransplantation, much depends on
the way we view the human body. While no (absolute) distinction can be made
between the body and the soul, medical science frequently treats the body as a mere
object in a technical procedure. The tendency is to regard the body as a machine and
the doctor as a mechanic. Many bodily problems indeed have a clear physiological
cause, which can be addressed by the use of medication or some other treatment.
Certainly, impaired organ functionality is normally attributable to a physiological
cause. A patient suffering such impairment cannot be helped by talking; treatment is
required — the doctor as mechanic. The question is: is it acceptable to replace a failing
organ with a non-human body part? In other words, does the inclusion of an organ from
another species compromise our humanity?
Medical science has long made use of artificial devices, such as man-made joints
and even completely artificial organs, including hearts. Furthermore, the medical use of
materials taken from animals is well established: pigs’ heart valves are used as an
alternative to artificial valves and insulin from pigs was successfully administered to
diabetics for decades before insulin produced with biotechnological methods became
available.
Social issues
29
Having studied the detailed ethical deliberations of both the Nuffield Council of
Bioethics and the Kennedy Committee, the Xenotransplantation Committee shares the
conclusions set out in the two groups’ reports (Ken96, Nuf96) and feels that there is
little to be gained from reiterating the various arguments at this point. In the
Committee’s opinion, human dignity is not diminished by the implantation of living
organs, tissues or cells taken from an animal any more than by the implantation of
lifeless material. There is no objection in principle, therefore, to performing such
implants with a view to correcting human ailments. Nevertheless, the Committee
recognizes that, for religious, cultural or other reasons, not everyone will share this
opinion. A public debate on the acceptability of using animals to obtain ‘spare parts’
for transplantation into humans and of making the appropriate genetic modifications to
the source animals would therefore be in order. It is important to determine whether
society at large would support the implantation of animal organs into humans. The
Committee welcomes the initiatives made by the Animal Protection League in this
respect, but does not endorse the call for a two-year blanket moratorium on
xenotransplantation research (Ham97b). If it should prove that most people were in
principle in favour of allowing xenotransplantation, it would of course ultimately
remain up to the individual patient whether to accept implantation of an animal organ.
4.1.2
Clinical experimentation
As indicated in Chapter 3, the Committee feels that clinical xenotransplantation
experiments would not be justified at the present time. It would not be acceptable to
transfer living animal tissue to a human patient until the conditions referred to in
section 3.3 had been met. The treatment of a human patient using a technique which
remained quite inappropriate would indeed be an injure to human dignity.
4.1.3
Clinical treatment
Several new issues will come to the fore if xenotransplantation should reach the point
at which it is ready for application in the course of regular medical practice. While
identifying a number of potential problems, the Committee considers the proposal of
solutions to be beyond its remit.
First, there is a possibility that, if organs were more readily available, the criteria
applied in the referral of patients for transplant operations might be relaxed. This in
turn could conceivably lead to a reduction in the success rate achieved by such
treatment.
The availability of resources is another possible area of concern. If the demand for
organs could be met, would it actually be possible to treat everyone who needed one?
Social issues
30
Is there sufficient theatre capacity; are there enough specialists and, most important, are
there sufficient financial resources? Commercially interested parties are very keen to
patent biotechnological ‘inventions’, such as transgenic animals or organs. But even
without patenting, transgenic organs will acquire a market value, and this will have
implications both for the ready availability of such organs and for the cost of health
care.
If organs from source animals acquire a market value, human donor organs may also
become a tradeable commodity. In the Netherlands, however, the sale of human organs
would be illegal under the Organ Donation Act (Stb96c).
A general belief that xenotransplantation will be possible in due course could lead
the public to think that (post-mortem) organ donation is no longer necessary. The
Committee, however, believes that such a conclusion would be quite unjustified; by far
the best way of resolving the shortage in organs for transplantation is to increase the
supply of human donor organs. This issue is addressed in more detail in section 4.3.
The proposed initiatives to provide both the public and the medical professions with
information regarding the amendment of the Organ Donation Act are therefore highly
desirable (Bor97).
4.2
The use of animals
4.2.1
Health and welfare
In the 1981 policy document entitled ‘The National Government and Animal
Protection’, it was acknowledged that animals deserved protection and that it was one
of the government’s duties to provide such protection. According to this document,
animal protection policy ‘should be based upon recognition of the intrinsic value of the
individual animal. Policy must be designed to afford animals as much protection as
possible against human activities which threaten their physical and ethological welfare.
In practice, this means that people are always accountable for the acceptability of their
activities with animals.’
By recognizing the intrinsic value of the animal, the government effectively
accepted that animals should not be regarded as objects whose only value is as an
exploitable resource. It therefore follows, and is enshrined in law, that instrumental
exploitation of animals is permissible only where sufficient justification exists. The use
of animals for xenotransplantation or research into the viability of xenotrans- plantation
would certainly be classed as instrumental exploitation and must therefore be justified.
Social issues
31
The law lays down rules on the use of laboratory animals and their genetic
modification (see Chapter 5). Under these rules, proposals regarding the conduct of
experiments on animals require the approval of an Animal Experimentation Committee
and, if genetic modification is involved, the Biotechnology in Animals Committee.
Both xenotransplantation experiments involving animals and the breeding of
animals to provide transplantable organs would inevitably involve a degree of distress
or suffering for the creatures concerned. However, such suffering must be minimized
and proportionate to the aim of the activity. Similar criteria apply to the breach of
individual integrity necessarily associated with transgenic experiments. The Committee
sees no objection to breeding pigs which carry a small number of human genes,
provided that the modifications made are without detriment to their physiology,
functionality or welfare. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that it is not possible to
determine in advance to what extent a particular transgenic experiment will affect the
welfare of the animals concerned. Consideration of the welfare issues relating to
proposed experiments must be individually evaluated by the Biotechnology in Animals
Committee and the Animal Experimentation Committees.
4.2.2
Which species?
If it is accepted in principle that there is sufficient justification for the use of animals to
provide replacement organs for humans, and thereby for the research which must
necessarily precede such use, the question arises: is it equally acceptable to use any
animal species?
As indicated in Chapter 3, the high risk of pathogens (particularly viruses) being
transferred to humans makes the use of primates as source animals unacceptable.
However, if the safety problems associated with primate use should ever be overcome,
it will then be necessary to decide whether the involvement of these animals raises
special ethical issues. In the context of this report, discussion is best restricted to a few
points which are relevant to the argumentation:
Emotionally speaking, the instrumental use of animal species which are relatively
close to humans in evolutionary terms is more problematical than the use of more
distant species. This may be because people see more of themselves in closely
related species. It is also harder to kill animals which appear from the complexity
of their behaviour and from their social interactions to possess greater
individualism and consciousness.
Being kept and bred mainly in the type of (highly sterile) environment necessary to
assure a specified pathogen-free status would appear more distressing for primates
than for animals which have traditionally been kept on farms.
Social issues
32
The use and killing of animals from rare or endangered species are not considered
acceptable. However, not all non-human primates come under this category.
4.2.3
The breeding of source animals
The breeding and accommodation of animals to provide organs for xenotransplantation
could raise welfare problems, since the animals would have to be kept under conditions
designed to prevent them from acquiring pathogens. This might well make it difficult
for the animals to behave naturally.
However, assuming that the pig becomes the preferred source animal, the
Committee believes that it is acceptable to keep such animals under conditions
designed to assure the production of specified pathogen-free individuals. While it is
true that pigs bred under such circumstances would not lead very natural lives, there
seems no reason why the animals’ welfare should be unduly affected, given sufficient
effort and investment. So long as pigs are commonly bred in a similar way in the
agricultural industry, there seems no very good reason why pigs bred for purposes
other than consumption should be entitled to a more natural life or more ‘animalfriendly’ treatment. Nevertheless, the Committee would point out that the policy
document ‘The National Government and Animal Protection’ suggests that animal
husbandry, for whatever purpose, is only justified if due consideration is given to the
animals’ natural habits.
4.3
Solutions for the organ shortage
4.3.1
Human donor organs
As indicated in section 4.1, the Committee believes that the shortage of replacement
organs is best addressed by increasing the supply of human donor organs. It is
recognized, however, that the scope for doing so is limited. One problem is the
proportional increase of the ageing population, which is pushing up the demand for
organs while reducing the supply. At the same time, supply is affected by the fact that
road accident deaths are falling. Legal provisions, such as those in place in Belgium
and Austria, where everyone is considered to have consented to post-mortem organ
donation unless they indicate otherwise, can increase the supply of donor organs.
Figure 2 shows the number of post-mortem donors per year per million people in
several European countries between 1989 and 1996. Distinction is made between
countries with an ‘opt out’ system and countries where donors have to explicitly
consent. On average, countries with opt out systems have more donors than countries
where donors must opt in. However, many other factors can affect the number of
Social issues
33
6
donors / 10 individuals
35
B
30
A
25
SP
F
20
NL
15
10
1989
G
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
year
1996
UK
Figure 2 Numbers of post-mortem donors per million members of the population in various European
countries between 1989 and 1996. The lines for countries with an ‘opt out’ system (Belgium, Austria,
Spain and France) are in black. Grey lines are used for countries where explicit consent is required from
donors (the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom). (Sources: Cou96, Cou97, Per97)
donors, one being the number of transplant coordinators; Spain, for instance, has a
relatively high number of coordinators, and this appears to benefit the level of supply.
Although an increase in the supply of donor organs could reduce waiting lists
significantly, high levels of supply alone do not guarantee short waiting lists. Figures 3
and 4 show this, in combination with the data from Figure 2, for the numbers of people
waiting for kidney and heart transplants, respectively. When studying these figures, one
should bear in mind that Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria (together
with Luxembourg) work together through Eurotransplant. As a result, organs which
become available in one of the participating countries can be used in any of the others,
and this has an impact on waiting list length. (The percentage of organs involved can
be anything between about 10 per cent and 40 per cent, since it varies from year to
year, and differs from one organ type to another.) There are also differences in referral
criteria; this is particularly clear from Figure 4, which shows the number of people
joining the waiting list for heart transplants. Because of these and other factors, the
legal arrangements in Eurotransplant member countries have less influence on the
waiting list length than on the supply of donor organs. Consequently, while the
Committee thinks that the revised Organ Donation Act may well increase the supply of
donor organs in the Netherlands*, it is not expected to have a major impact on the
shortage, especially since population ageing is set to push up demand still further.
Social issues
34
6
numbers awaiting kidneys / 10 individuals
160
B
140
A
120
SP
100
F
80
NL
60
G
40
1989
1990
1991
1992 1993
year
1994
1995
UK
Figure 3 Numbers of people waiting for kidney transplants per million members of the population in
various European countries between 1989 and 1995. The lines for countries with an ‘opt out’ system
(Belgium, Austria, Spain and France) are in black. Grey lines are used for countries where explicit consent
is required from donors (the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom). (Sources: Coh95, Per97)
6
people joining heart transplant waiting list / 10 individuals
30
B
25
A
20
NL
15
G
10
5
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
year
1993
1994
1995
Figure 4 Numbers (re)joining the heart transplant waiting list per million members of the population in
various European countries between 1989 and 1995. The lines for countries with an ‘opt out’ system
(Belgium and Austria) are in black. Grey lines are used for countries where explicit consent is required
from donors (the Netherlands and Germany). The numbers (re)joining in the Netherlands are relatively
low because of the strict referral criteria. (Sources: Coh95, Per97)
Social issues
35
4.3.2
Other options
Given the factors outlined above, the shortage of replacement organs cannot be met
entirely by increasing the supply of human donor organs. Additional measures will be
needed, and xenotransplantation is one of the possibilities. The Kennedy report
identifies a number of other options which might in time help to resolve the situation,
including gene therapy and the use of artificial organs (Ken96). However, no
significant contribution can be expected from either option in the short term, i.e. within
a few years. The advantages and limitations of these approaches are not considered in
this report; readers are referred to the Kennedy report and the Health Council’s recent
report on gene therapy (GR97).
It is also important that the health benefits of preventive measures and the
promotion of such measures are not overlooked in this debate. Life style changes, such
as not smoking, reducing fat consumption and taking more exercise, would certainly
reduce the incidence of heart disease, while the reduction of alcohol intake could help
to cut the frequency of liver failure. While believing that the encouragement of healthy
living could help control the incidence of organ function loss, the Committee does not
expect that the impact of such a policy would ever be sufficient to correct the
imbalance between the supply of and demand for replacement organs.
*
All people in the Netherlands of 18 years of age and older will receive a form on which they can indicate whether they
want to be registered in a central registry as tissue/organ donor or not, or that they leave the decision to donate up to
their relatives. If the form is not returned, the latter approach is followed.
Social issues
36
Chapter
5
The legal position
The adequacy of existing and forthcoming legislation as a framework for regulating the
development and possible application of xenotransplantation is the subject of
consideration in this chapter.
The need for regulation is a corollary of the government’s responsibility to protect
public health. Product quality control and procedural safety in the field of
xenotransplantation both require central regulation to ensure protection of the personal
integrity and privacy of patients receiving animal organs (either in the context of an
experiment or in the context of normal treatment) and the respectful treatment of the
animals used. The government is also responsible for overall management of the
nation’s health care system. Xenotransplantation is important in this context as well,
since its development and application have implications for the direction, planning,
financing and supervision of health care.
Five existing and forthcoming bodies of legislation are pertinent to
xenotransplantation:
the law on the use of animals
the law on genetically modified organisms
product law
care sector law
patent law.
Each of these five legal areas is described in turn below and problems which might
arise in relation to xenotransplantation are identified.
The legal position
37
5.1
The use of animals
Two acts of parliament are relevant in relation to the use of animals:
the Experiments on Animals Act
the Animal Health and Welfare Act.
5.1.1
Animal experiments
The conduct of animal experiments must comply with the provisions of the
Experiments on Animals Act (Stb92). Under this act, institutes can obtain a general
licence to perform animal experiments. A licensed institute then has to submit details of
each project involving animal experiments to an Animal Experimentation Committee
(Dutch initials: DEC) for approval. Until such approval is obtained, the institute is not
permitted to go ahead with the experiments. DECs assess proposals on the basis of
various scientific, animal-welfare and ethical criteria. Ethical assessment involves
carefully weighing up the degree of distress likely to be suffered by the animals against
the scientific and social significance of the research. If a DEC refuses to approve a
proposal, the licensee can appeal to the Central Committee on Animal Experiments. If
the latter committee rules in favour of the licensee, the experiment can go ahead after
all.
5.1.2
Biotechnical procedures
Animal experiments that involve biotechnical procedures, such as genetic modification,
are covered not only by the Experiments on Animals Act but also by Sections 66 to 72
of the Animal Health and Welfare Act (Stb96a). (Naturally, the Act’s general rules
regarding protection of the health and welfare of the animals apply as well.) The basic
principle applied is that biotechnical procedures involving animal subjects are
forbidden unless licensed by the Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and
Fisheries. Before granting a licence, the Minister seeks the advice of the Biotechnology
in Animals Committee, which assesses the proposed procedure against two criteria:
the procedure must not have any unacceptable implications for the health and
welfare of the animals
no serious ethical objections to the procedure must exist.
Thus, the Biotechnology in Animals Committee would have to assess any
xenotransplantation research proposal which involved genetic modification
(transgenesis) of the source animals.
The legal position
38
The said sections of the Animal Health and Welfare Act came into force on 1 April
1997, with the exception of Section 66, clause 1, subclauses c and d (Stb97a). The
second of these subclauses, which applies to the importation of transgenic animals, has
been held in abeyance so as not to create a barrier to trade within the European market.
As the law stands, the Biotechnology in Animals Committee would not have to be
consulted about an experiment to be performed in the Netherlands using transgenic
animals bred abroad. However, the Xenotransplantation Committee would like to see a
new clause added to Section 66 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act making it
necessary to obtain a licence for xenotransplantation experiments involving the use of
organs, tissues and cells from transgenic animals bred outside the Netherlands, since
any such experiment would entail the application of transgenesis in a way that might
arouse public disquiet. Pending the addition of such a clause, the Committee would call
upon researchers to recognize that they have a moral responsibility to voluntarily
submit proposals for such experiments to the Biotechnology in Animals Committee.
5.2
Genetically modified organisms
Animals subjected to biotechnical procedures for xenotransplantation research purposes
and transgenic animals created in the course of such research would be covered not
only by the relevant sections of the Animal Health and Welfare Act, but also by the
laws on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The laws in question are designed to
protect human health and the environment against the possible adverse effects of
producing and using GMOs.
Dutch legislation in this area incorporates two European directives.
Directive 90/219/EEC (EU90a) on the contained use of genetically modified
organisms focuses mainly on the research phase. It includes requirements regarding the
facilities and methods used in laboratories handling GMOs. The directive is
implemented in Dutch law through two pieces of legislation:
the Environmental Management Act (Stb94a) and the associated Environmental
Management (Premises and Licences) Decree (Stb93a)
Section 2 of the Genetically Modified Organisms Decree issued pursuant to the
Environmentally Hazardous Substances Act (Stb93b) and the associated ministerial
regulations (the Regulations on the Contained Use of Genetically Modified
Organisms (Stc93)).
The other European directive concerned (90/220/EEC) (EU90b) lays down rules on the
deliberate introduction of genetically modified organisms to the environment. It
regulates all activities with GMOs which do not take place in institutions of the kind
The legal position
39
covered by EC directive 90/219. (Such activities are referred to as ‘the introduction of
genetically modified organisms to the environment’.) Distinction is made between the
marketing of products containing GMOs and all other activities with such organisms
(including the treatment of patients). The directive is implemented in Section 3 of the
Genetically Modified Organisms Decree.
Under the Genetically Modified Organisms Decree, the genetic modification of
organisms and xenotransplantation activities involving GMOs have to be licensed
under the Environmental Management Act. The licensing authority can refer to the
Genetic Modification Committee (Dutch acronym: COGEM) for advice.
The laws on GMOs cover not only genetically modified animals used to provide organs
for xenotransplantation, but also the organs obtained from them and even the recipients
of these organs. Hence, the law as it stands would regard a patient receiving a
genetically modified organ in a clinical xenotransplantation experiment as the carrier of
a GMO. Consequently, such a patient would come within the scope of the
Environmentally Hazardous Substances Act and the associated regulations. The
Committee considers this an undesirable prospect, since neither the Act nor the
regulations were drawn up with medical applications in mind; they are designed to
protect the general public and not the health of individual patients. If the time comes
when clinical experiments and perhaps, in due course, regular medical application are
considered in order, the Committee would wish to see the law amended so that the
carriers of genetically modified organs are explicitly excluded from compliance with
the Environmentally Hazardous Substances Act. The (forthcoming) Medical Research
Involving Human Subjects Act offers a much better framework for the regulation of
clinical experiments in the field of xenotransplantation (see 5.3.2).
The Committee also strongly recommends that agreement is sought within the EU
regarding application of the regulations on GMOs in relation to xenotransplantation.
5.3
Quality and safety of products and treatments
As discussed in section 3.2, there is a risk of pathogenic organisms being transferred
from source animals to humans as a result of xenotransplantation. The Committee
believes that the government should take appropriate preventive measures to protect
individual patients and public health. First, as indicated in section 3.3, animal
experiments should be performed to increase scientific understanding of the risks
involved. Such research might, for example, indicate that it was necessary to ensure
that organs intended for xenotransplantation were free from certain pathogens. The
government could then set appropriate quality requirements before allowing clinical
experiments. To obtain organs which were free from certain pathogens, source animals
The legal position
40
would have to be bred under specified pathogen-free conditions within the framework
of a good husbandry practice regime (see section 3.2), following the principles of GLP
(Good Laboratory Practice) and GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice). Every animal
organ should be checked for pathogens prior to transplantation.
With a view to controlling the risk of infection by unknown pathogens, the
government should also introduce special quality requirements regarding the
transplantation procedure itself. During and following a transplant operation, both the
recipient of the xenotransplanted organ and everyone with whom he or she has direct
contact must be constantly monitored so that any new illness can be detected and
treated as early as possible. Monitoring arrangements should include a central
registration system. The transplant operation and the monitoring activities should
follow the principles of GCP (Good Clinical Practice).
5.3.1
Product law
Animal organs for xenotransplantation will in all probability become available on a
commercial basis. The quality requirements which such organs must meet should
therefore be set out in product law.
The Committee does not anticipate that source animals will be bred in the
Netherlands in the near future. It is more likely that, once clinical application is in
order, organs or source animals will be imported. The Committee is therefore strongly
in favour of uniform product regulations, at least within the EU. It is most undesirable
that different countries each develop their own quality requirements and monitoring
system.
In the Committee’s judgement, existing Dutch law on medical devices is not sufficient
to cover animal organs for xenotransplantation. The main shortcoming is the absence of
a suitable quality control system.
As things stand, the most far-reaching quality control requirements are contained in
medicinal product law, under which the relevant parties have to perform thorough
quality control procedures and post-marketing surveillance, based on the principles of
GMP, GLP and GCP. Special rules exist covering medicines created using high-level
technologies, such as genetic modification. Before any such product may be marketed,
it must be licensed in accordance with both Dutch GMO law and European law
(EU93).
However, medicinal product law is not intended to deal with products which
consist of or contain living material or with the associated quality requirements. In
consequence, many provisions of medicinal product law are not applicable to such
products. In other words, there are gaps in the law, which will need to be filled by the
The legal position
41
introduction of new legislation. Amendment of existing medicinal product law would
make the legal position very complex, which the Committee considers undesirable.
The Committee therefore wishes to see new legislation introduced specifically to
cover medicinal products which consist of or contain living material. Such a move
would be in line with the recommendations of the recent Health Council report on gene
therapy (GR97). The latter report coined the term ‘biologicals’. An organ intended for
xenotransplantation would fit the definition of such a product. Any new legislation
could include quality standards for biological medical products in general and for
certain product types. The creation of such a legal framework would allow for
harmonization of all the matters which are presently either not covered by the law or
covered by diverse legal provisions. These matters include the safety of genetic
modification, working with GMOs and their introduction to the environment, special
requirements regarding working under SPF conditions, a follow-up system and a
registration procedure. As indicated earlier, quality standards should ideally be agreed
at the European level.
If there were a single legal framework covering biological medical products, the
law would be more comprehensible and transparent. Furthermore, the government
would be able to respond quickly to new developments in medical biotechnology.
New legislation of the kind described could not be introduced very quickly.
However, the Committee believes that some form of legal control of
xenotransplantation involving humans is required in the short term. No clinical
experiments should be conducted until all the conditions already referred to have been
satisfied and until it is decided which product laws apply to organs for
xenotransplantation. Accordingly, the Committee suggests that such organs should
temporarily be brought within the scope of medicinal product legislation. Similar
arrangements would need to be made at the European level, pending development of
European quality standards.
5.3.2
Medical procedures
Legislation on medical procedures has three main functions:
protection of the patient
ensuring the quality of care and professional practice
the organization, planning and financing of health care.
The legal position
42
Protection of the patient
The (forthcoming) Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (Dutch initials:
WMO) will apply to clinical xenotransplantation experiments and appears to provide a
suitable framework for their regulation (EK97).
Clinical experiments will not be permitted unless the conditions set out in the
WMO can be met. Under the Act, it is illegal to perform an experiment involving one
or more human subjects until an independent committee has approved the research
protocol. By reference to generally accepted standards and criteria (only some of which
are explicitly named in the Act), a special local Medical Ethics Committee or a national
Central Committee (CeCo) considers whether the proposed research is reasonable and
whether it is ethically and scientifically acceptable. The Act makes provision for
certain categories of research to be referred to the CeCo as a matter of course.
Accordingly, the Committee believes that Section 2, clause 2, subclause 4, of the
WMO should be used to give the CeCo exclusive authority to approve protocols for
xenotransplantation experiments with human subjects. As a national body, the CeCo is
better placed than any local committee to monitor developments in the field of
xenotransplantation.
If xenotransplantation can at some stage be offered as a regular medical treatment,
it will come within the scope of the part of the Civil Code covering medical treatment
contracts (WGBO) (Stb94b). The Committee does not anticipate that this should prove
problematic.
The right to information is important in relation to xenotransplantation, both in the
context of experimentation and in the context of regular treatment. Patients must be
informed of the nature of the procedure, its consequences, the associated risks and
other relevant matters in a way which is clear and comprehensible to the individuals in
question. Researchers and practitioners would need to bear in mind the fact that
patients are likely to see xenotransplantation as a last resort. Indeed, this may be
relevant to the ethical acceptability of xenotransplantation in its experimental stage,
since it is essential that would-be subjects are able to make completely free and
informed decisions.
The risk of pathogen transfer should be fully detailed in the information given to
prospective transplant recipients. In particular, attention should be drawn to the fact
that an infection could conceivably be passed on to the people with whom the patient
has contact (see section 3.2). In view of this possibility, both the patient and his or her
immediate contacts would have to be constantly monitored. Hence, the voluntary and
informed cooperation of such contacts would also be required. Registration of the data
collected during the postoperative checks would be an essential prerequisite; there
The legal position
43
might, however, be problems reconciling public health interests with the individual’s
right of privacy. Nevertheless, it should always be made clear that further direct contact
between the patient and anyone who declines to cooperate in this regard would not be
possible. Furthermore, during the clinical experimentation phase at least, it would be
necessary to restrict the number of people with whom a patient had contact following a
transplant operation, so as to keep the postoperative monitoring programme to tolerable
proportions. As a result, the organ recipient’s freedom of movement would need to be
restricted. Xenotransplant operations should not be made generally available until these
problems are manageable.
Quality of care and professional practice
In the Committee’s opinion, the Quality of Care (Institutions) Act (Stb96b) and the
Individual Health Care Professions Act (Dutch initials: Wet BIG; Stb93c) provide
sufficient assurances regarding the quality of care and professional practice in relation
to xenotransplantation both in the context of experimentation and in the context of
normal treatment.
Organization, planning and financing of health care
The Hospital Provision Act (in particular Section 18) provides a framework within
which it is possible to set requirements regarding hospital provisions and to control the
application of emerging technologies (Stb71). However, the Act offers little scope for
the regulation of clinical xenotransplantation. Now that the Exceptional Medical
Procedures Act (Dutch initials: WBMV) is in force, this would appear to be a better
vehicle for regulation (Stb97b). Under this Act, the government could prohibit
xenotransplantation or introduce compulsory licensing. The WBMV could also be used
to impose a moratorium, during which clinical experiments or certain procedures were
prohibited pending public debate and political review.
5.4
Patent law
Patent law can be used to protect biotechnical ‘inventions’. Generally speaking, neither
animal breeds nor biological procedures for producing animals of a given breed can be
patented. However, microbiological procedures and the products of such procedures
form an exception in this regard (EU64, EU75, Stb95). It would appear from a ruling
passed by the European Patent Office’s Technical Board of Appeal in the case of the
‘Harvard Oncomouse’ that an individual animal can be patented, even though a breed
cannot. This case has now gone before the European Patent Office’s Opposition
The legal position
44
Division, however, so the Board of Appeal’s ruling may not prove to be the final word
on the matter. No decision is expected in the short term.
In response to the growing interest in patenting biological ‘inventions’, the
European Commission has been working on an appropriate directive. The first draft
was rejected by the European Parliament in March 1995, because MEPs considered it
ethically unacceptable to grant patents on genetically modified biological material
(EU95). A revised draft was subsequently approved by the parliament (Com95). One of
the main features of the directive is that it opens the way for patenting biological
material, including animals and parts of animals created using procedures which are not
manifestly biological, but excluding plant varieties and animal breeds. Manifestly
biological procedures for producing animals would remain unpatentable. Under the
directive, it would be possible to patent ways of using animal breeds and procedures
necessary for producing animals of a given breed. The EU’s Council of Ministers is
due to decide where it stands on this issue, after which the directive will receive a
second reading in the European Parliament. The expectation is that the directive will be
passed by 1 January 1999. Once in force, the new directive should lead to uniform
application of the existing rules on what can and cannot be patented, as well as to an
unambiguous interpretation of patents granted in the field of biotechnology.
The legal position
45
Chapter
6
Conclusions
On the basis of the assessment outlined in the previous chapters of the report, the
Committee concludes that xenotransplantation can probably be developed into a viable
clinical technique, but not in the near future. It will be quite some time before the
serious rejection and safety problems associated with xenotransplantation can be
overcome.
It is important that the ethical acceptability of clinical xenotransplantation — both from
the human viewpoint and from the animal viewpoint — is considered while the
technique is still at an early stage of development.
If xenotransplantation becomes clinically viable, the technique will be capable of
alleviating the suffering of people with certain medical conditions and in many cases of
prolonging life. The Committee therefore believes that, from a human point of view,
xenotransplantation is ethically acceptable. Furthermore, the Committee is of the
opinion that the interests of the people who might benefit from the technique are
sufficient to justify the possible inconvenience to or infringement upon the integrity of
the animals concerned and that the breeding of genetically modified animals for
xenotransplantation purposes is therefore acceptable.
It is recognized that some people may, e.g. for cultural or religious reasons,
disagree with the Committee’s conclusion. The Committee would consequently like to
see information made available and the encouragement of public debate on these
matters.
Conclusions
46
The Committee feels that this is not yet the time to bring xenotransplantation to the
clinic. While it appears that a solution to the problem of hyperacute rejection may well
be within reach, another form of rejection, which begins within a few days of a
transplant operation, seems more intractable. Currently, the only way to prevent such
rejection is to administer immunosuppressant drugs in doses which would be
unacceptable for humans. Not only is a solution to this problem some considerable way
off, but serious doubt also remains regarding the functional ability of an animal organ
to take over from its human equivalent.
At present, another obstacle to the use of xenotransplantation is the risk of
infection. In the Committee’s view, scientists do not yet understand anywhere near
enough about the processes by which infectious agents might be transferred from an
animal organ to its human recipient — and perhaps subsequently transmitted to others
— to enable them to estimate the associated risks.
Clinical experiments would not be appropriate until there is a good chance of
operative success and until the rejection problems have been reduced to a level
comparable with that currently associated with the transplantation of organs from
human donors. The risk of infection must also be reduced to an acceptable level. To
this end, there is a need for better understanding of the risk of pathogen transfer and for
ways of ensuring that organs are free from highly infectious pathogens. Greater
certainty is required both in relation to pathogens capable of causing relatively minor
infections (such as influenza viruses) in large population groups and in relation to
pathogens capable of causing serious diseases in small groups.
In view of the uncertainties outlined above, it is not yet possible to say whether
xenotransplantation will ever become a clinically viable technique and, if so, when.
Finally, the Committee wishes to see legislation drafted in anticipation of the possible
clinical application of the technique, with a view to regulating the production and use
of animal organs for xenotransplantation. Given that any future trade in such organs is
likely to be of an international nature, appropriate product regulations should be
established at the supranational level.
The xenotransplantation of animal organs into humans, even on an experimental
basis, should not be permitted until an adequate legal framework is in place. The
Committee believes that the Central Committee which is to be set up under the
(forthcoming) Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act should have exclusive
authority to approve protocols for xenotransplantation experiments with human
subjects. As a national body, the CeCo would be well placed to monitor developments
in this field.
Conclusions
47
Rijswijk, 21 January 1998,
on behalf of the Committee,
(signed)
E van Rongen,
secretary
Conclusions
AJ Dunning,
chairman
48
References
All96
Allan JS. Xenotransplantation at a crossroads: prevention versus progress. Nature Med 1996; 2(1): 18-21.
Ano96
Anonymus. Varkensorganen misschien ook gebruikt bij de mens. Algemeen Dagblad 1996; 1 June.
Ano97
Anonymus. Interim group on xenotransplants for UK. SCRIP 1997; 2200: 3.
Bac97
Bach FH, Ferran C, Soares M, et al. Modification of vascular responses in xenotransplantation:
inflammation and apoptosis. Nature Med 1997; 3(9): 944-8.
Ben97
Benowtiz S. Many scientists contesting xenotransplant guidelines. Scientist 1997; 11(8): 1-4.
Bha97
Bhatti FNK, Schmoekel M, Zaidi A, et al. Life supporting cardiac transplantation in a transgenic pig to
primate model. (Abstract O-52) In: The 4th International Congress for Xenotransplantation. Book of
abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Bor97
Borst-Eilers, E. Personal communication, 2 December 1997.
Cha95
Chapman LE, Folks TM, Salomon DR, et al. Xenotransplantation and xenogeneic infections. N Engl J
Med 1995; 333(22): 1498-501.
Coh95
Cohen B, Persijn G, De Meester J, et al. Annual Report 1995. Leiden: Eurotransplant International
Foundation, 1995.
Com95
Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen. Voorstel voor een richtlijn van het Europees Parlement en
de Raad betreffende de wettelijke bescherming van biotechnologische uitvindingen. Commissie van de
Europese Gemeenschappen, (COM) (95) 661 def./2, 95/0350 (COD).
Cou96
Council of Europe: Select Committee of Experts on the Organisational Aspects of Cooperation in Organ
Transplantation. Preliminary data report on organ donation and transplantation - 1995. Transplant
Newslett 1996; (March).
References
49
Cou97
Council of Europe: Select Committee of Experts on the Organisational Aspects of Cooperation in Organ
Transplantation. International figures on organ donation and transplantation activities - 1996. Transplant
Newslett 1997; 2(1).
Coz95
Cozzi E, White DJG. The generation of transgenic pigs as potential organ donors for humans. Nature Med
1995; 1(9): 964-6.
Day97
Day M. Tainted transplants. New Scientist, 1997; (18 October): 4.
Dea97
Deacon T, Schumacher J, Dinsmore J, et al. Histological evidence of fetal pig neural cell survival after
transplantation into a patient with Parkinsons’ disease. Nature Med 1997; 3(3): 350-3.
Dia97
Diamond LE, Martin MJ, Adams D, et al. Transgenic pig hearts and kidneys expressing human CD59,
CD55, or CD46 are protected from hyperacute rejection upon transplantation into baboons. (Abstract
O-185) In: The 4th International Congress for Xenotransplantation. Book of abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Din97
Dinsmore J, Deacon T, Schumacher J, et al. Fetal pig mesencephalic cell suspension xenografts in a
Parkinson’s patient. (Abstract O-177) In: The 4th International Congress for Xenotransplantation. Book of
abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Dor97
Dorling A, Riesbeck K, Warrens A, et al. Clinical xenotransplantation of solid organs. Lancet 1997; 349:
867-71.
EK97
Regelen inzake medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen (Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk
onderzoek met mensen). Nader gewijzigd voorstel van wet. Handelingen Eerste Kamer 1997-1998, nr
22588-18. Den Haag: SDU uitgeverij, 1997.
EU64
Verdrag van Straatsburg. Traktatenblad 1964, 173.
EU75
Europees Octrooiverdrag. Traktatenblad 1975, 108 en traktatenblad 1976, 101.
EU90a
Europese Unie. Richtlijn van de Raad van de Europese Gemeenschappen van 23 april 1990 inzake het
ingeperkt gebruik van genetisch gemodificeerde micro-organismen (90/219/EEG). Documentnummer
390L0219. Publikatieblad L117, 8 mei 1990, 1-14.
EU90b
Europese Unie. Richtlijn van de Raad van de Europese Gemeenschappen van 23 april 1990 inzake de
doelbewuste introductie van genetisch gemodificeerde organismen in het milieu (90/220/EEG).
Documentnummer 390L0220. Publikatieblad L117, 8 mei 1990, 15-27.
EU93
Europese Unie. Verordening nr. 2309/93 van de Raad van de Europese Gemeenschappen van 22 juli 1993
tot vaststelling van communautaire procedures voor het verlenen van vergunningen voor en het toezicht op
geneesmiddelen voor menselijk en diergeneeskundig gebruik en tot oprichting van een Europees Bureau
voor de geneesmiddelenbeoordeling. Publikatieblad L214, 24 augustus 1993.
EU95
Besluit betreffende de door het bemiddelingscomité goedgekeurde gemeenschappelijke ontwerp-tekst van
een richtlijn van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende de wettelijke bescheming van
biotechnologische uitvindingen. Publikatieblad C68, 20 maart 1995, 26.
Gov97
Anonymus. The government response to “Animal tissue into humans”. The report of the Advisory group
on the ethics of xenotransplantation. Londen: USGPO, 1997.
GR97
Health Council of the Netherlands: Gene therapy Committee. Gene therapy. Rijswijk: Health Council of
the Netherlands, 1997; publication nr 1997/12E.
References
50
Gro94
Groth CG, Korsgren O, Tibell A, et al. Transplantation of porcine fetal pancreas to diabetic patients.
Lancet 1994; 344: 1402-4.
Ham97a
Hammer C. Personal communication, 1997.
Ham97b
Hamakers IJ. Xenotransplantatie. Dieren gedegradeerd tot leveranciers van reserve-organen. Den Haag:
Dierenbescherming, 1997.
IOM96
Institute of Medicine. Xenotransplantation. Science, ethics and policy. Washington: National Academy
Press, 1996.
Ken96
The Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. Animal tissue into humans. Norwich: The
Stationary Office, 1996.
Koz97
Kozlowski T, Shimizu A, Fuchimoto Y, et al. Clinical outcome of pig kidney transplants in baboons
treated with a tolerance inducing regimen. (Abstract P-285) In: The 4th International Congress for
Xenotransplantation. Book of abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Kro97
Kroshus TJ, Salerno CT, Fodor WL, et al. Expression of human CD59 in combination with antibody
depletion extends survival in orthotopic pig-to-baboon heart transplants. (Abstract O-51) In: The 4th
International Congress for Xenotransplantation. Book of abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Lai96
LaV95
Laing P. Sandoz. The unrecognized potential of xenotransplantation. London: Salomon Brothers, 1996.
LaVecchio JA, Dunne AD, Edge AS. Enzymatic removal of alpha-galactosyl epitopes from porcine
endothelial cells diminishes the cytotoxic effect of natural antibodies. Transplantation 1995; 60(8): 841-7.
Law96
Lawson JH, Platt JL. Molecular barriers to xenotransplantation. Transplantation 1996; 62(3): 303-10.
Law97
Lawson JH, Diamond LE, Martin MJ, et al. Expression of human complement regulatory proteins CD59
and decay accelerating factor (DAF) prolongs survival and physiologic function in pig-to-baboon kidney
transplants. (Abstract O-47) In: The 4th International Congress for Xenotransplantation. Book of abstracts.
Nantes: 1997.
LeT97
Le Tissier P, Stoye JP, Takeuchi Y, et al. Two sets of human-tropic pig retrovirus. Nature 1997; 389:
681-2.
Mar94
Marquet RL. Het dier als orgaandonor voor de mens. Stand van zaken en perspectief. Med Contact 1994;
49: 1498-1500.
Mor96
Moran N. A UK advisory council for xenotransplantation? Nature Med 1996; 2(4): 378.
Nas95
Nasto B. Pig hearts in the clinic next year? Bio/Technology 1995; 13: 1159-60.
Nas97
Nasto B. Human xenotransplants banned in UK. Nature Biotechnol 1997; 15: 214.
Now94
Nowak R. Pig transplants offer hope in diabetes. Science 1994; 266: 1323.
Nuf96
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Animal-to-human transplants. The ethics of transplantation. London:
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1996.
Pat97
Patience C, Takeuchi Y, Weiss RA. Infection of human cells by an endogenous retrovirus of pigs. Nature
Med 1997; 3(3): 282-6.
Per97
PHS96
Persijn GG. Personal communication, 1997.
Public Health Service. Draft public health service guideline in infectious disease issues in
xenotransplantation; notice. Federal Register 1996; 23 September: 49920-32.
Pla95
Platt JL, Parker W. Another step towards xenotransplantation. Nature Med 1995; 1(12): 1248-50.
References
51
Rog96
Rogers L. Patients line up for first pig organ transplant. Sunday Times 1996; 29 September.
Rog97
Rogers L. Doctors test ‘human gene’ pigs on patients. Sunday Times 1997; 26 October.
Sch97
Schmoeckel M, Warner R, Waterworth PD, et al. Factors influencing early graft failure after transgenic
pig to primate orthotopic heart transplantation. (Abstract O-86) In: The 4th International Congress for
Xenotransplantation. Book of abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Stb71
Wet van 25 maart 1971, Staatsblad 268, houdende regelen ter bevordering van doelmatige voorzieningen
ter zake van ziekenhuizen en andere inrichtingen voor gezondheidszorg (Wet ziekenhuisvoorzieningen).
Laatste wijziging: 25 juni 1997, Staatsblad 280.
Stb92
Wet van 24 september 1992, Staatsblad 585, houdende vaststelling van de Gezondheids- en welzijnswet
voor dieren (Gezondheids- en welzijnswet voor dieren). Laatste wijziging: 11 september 1997, Staatsblad
504.
Stb93a
Besluit van 5 januari 1993, Staatsblad 50, houdende uitvoering van de hoofdstukken 1 en 8 van de Wet
milieubeheer en hoofdstuk V van de Wet geluidhinder (Inrichtingen- en vergunningenbesluit
milieubeheer). Laatste wijziging: 15 september 1997, Staatsblad 418.
Stb93b
Beschikking van de Minister van Jusititie van 16 augustus 1993, Staatsblad 435, houdende plaatsing in het
Staatsblad van de tekst van het Besluit genetisch gemodificeerde organismen Wet milieugevaarlijke
stoffen (Staatsblad 1990, 53), zoals dit laatstelijk is gewijzigd bij Koninklijk besluit van 15 juli 1993,
Staatsblad 428 (Besluit GGO). Laatste wijziging: 7 februari 1997, Staatsblad 74; oorspronkelijke regeling:
25 januari 1990, Staatsblad 53.
Stb93c
Wet van 11 november 1993, Staatsblad 655, houdende regelen inzake beroepen op het gebied van de
individuele gezondheidszorg (Wet op de beroepen in de individuele gezondheidszorg). Laatste wijziging:
18 januari 1996, Staatsblad 80.
Stb94a
Beschikking van de Minister van Justitie van 10 februari 1994, Staatblad 80, houdende plaatsing in het
Staatsblad van de tekst van de Wet milieubeheer zoals deze luidt met ingang van 1 jaunuari 1994 (Wet
milieubeheer). Laatste wijziging: 10 april 1997, Staatsblad 189; oorspronkelijke regeling: 13 juni 1979,
Staatsblad 442.
Stb94b
Wet van 17 november 1994, Staatsblad 837, tot wijziging van het Burgelijk Wetboek en enige andere
wetten in verband met de opneming van bepalingen omtrent de overeenkomst tot het verrichten van
handelingen op het gebied van de geneeskunst (Wet op de geneeskundige behandelingsovereenkomst).
Stb95
Rijksoctrooiwet, Staatsblad 1995, 52. Laatste wijziging: 14 december 1995, Staatsblad 668.
Stb96a
Beschikking van de Minister van Justitie van 21 november 1996, Staatsblad 565, houdende plaatsing in
het Staatsblad van de tekst van de Wet op de dierproeven, zoals deze laatstelijk is gewijzigd bij de wet van
12 september 1996, Staatsblad 500 (Wet op de dierproeven). Laatste wijziging: 6 februari 1997, Staatsblad
63; oorspronkelijk regeling: 12 januari 1977, Staatsblad 67.
Stb96b
Wet van 18 januari 1996, Staatsblad 80, betreffende de kwaliteit van zorginstellingen (Kwaliteitswet
zorginstellingen). Laatste wijziging: 26 september 1996, Staatsblad 478.
Stb96c
Wet van 24 mei 1996, Staatsblad 370, houdende regelen omtrent het ter beschikking stellen van organen
(Wet op de orgaandonatie). Laatste wijziging: 19 november 1997, Staatsblad 600.
References
52
Stb97a
Besluit van 5 maart 1997, Staatsblad 135, houdende de vaststelling van het tijdstip van inwerkingtreding
van een aantal artikelen van de Gezondheids- en welzijnswet voor dieren, alsmede van het Besluit
biotechnologie bij dieren.
Stb97b
Wet van 24 oktober 1997, Staatsblad 515, houdende regels betreffend bijzondere verrichtingen op het
gebied van de gezondheidszorg (Wet op bijzondere medische verrichtingen).
Stc93
Staatscourant 1993; 186. Corrected through a rectification in Staatscourant 1993; 207.
Swi96
Swindle MM. Considerations of specific pathogen-free swine (SPF) in xenotransplantation. J Invest Surg
1996; 9(4): 267-71.
Tib97
Tibell A, Blomqvist G, Klingeborn B, et al. Virological and clinical follow-up after xenoislet
transplantation. (Abstract O-178) In: The 4th International Congress of Xenotransplantation. Book of
abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Vau94
Vaughan HA, Loveland BE, Sandrin MS. Gal alpha(1,3)Gal is the major xenoepitope expressed on pig
endothelial cells recognized by naturally occurring cytotoxic human antibodies. Transplantation 1994;
58(8): 879-82.
War97
Warner RG, Waterworth PD, Cozzi E, et al. Elicited anti-gala1,3gal antibody responses in cynomolgus
monkey recipients of transgenic pig hearts. (Abstract O-33) In: The 4th International Congress for
Xenotransplantation. Book of abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
Zai97
Zaidi A, Friend P, Schmoekel M, et al. Hyperacute rejection is not consistent after pig to primate renal
xenotransplantation. (Abstract O-53) In: The 4th International Congress for Xenotransplantation. Book of
abstracts. Nantes: 1997.
References
53
A
The request for advice
B
The Committee
Annexes
54
Annex
A
The request for advice
In a letter dated 31 December 1996 (reference: CSZ/ME-9615719), the Minister of
Health, Welfare and Sport asked the President of the Health Council to report on the
present scientific status of xenotransplantation. The text of the Minister’s letter was as
follows:
I have noted that professional journals, the mass media and political commentators are devoting increasing
attention to the subject of ‘xenotransplantation’, i.e. the transplantation of an organ from an individual of
one species to an individual of another. Indeed, the first clinical xenotransplant operation (between an
animal and a human) may not be very far away. I am aware that the Health Council has been following
developments in this field for some time with a view to producing a report. I therefore thought it
appropriate to announce to the Lower House during the 1997 budget debate that I intended shortly
thereafter to formally ask the Council to prepare a report on this subject.
Accordingly, I hereby request that the Health Council prepares a report on the present scientific status of
xenotransplantation, giving particular attention to the following questions:
1
Do the scientific and medical developments of recent years give reason to believe that
xenotransplantation will within a reasonable period become a useful and responsible alternative — on
various grounds, including quality and safety — to the transplantation of organs from (deceased)
human donors? If so, which organs might be replaced in this way, and would such replacement be
more or less permanent or merely a temporary solution? Before any clinical experiments are
conducted with human patients, I believe a proper overview is needed of the potential benefits of and
objections to xenotransplantation. In my opinion, the following matters deserve particular attention in
this regard:
The request for advice
55
a
The acute and chronic rejection of transplanted organs, and the pharmaceutical and genetic scope for
controlling rejection, as well as the scope for making life-saving provisions available, either in the
form of technical resources or human donor organs;
b
The length of time a xenotransplanted organ might last if obtained from an animal which would not
normally be expected to live nearly as long as a human being;
c
The risk of persons directly involved with a xenotransplant operation (i.e. both patients and medical
personnel) and of indirectly involved members of the public (e.g. patients’ relatives) becoming
infected with organisms which are (potentially) pathogenic for humans, and the scope for treating
such infections, including those which are capable of causing serious illness.
2
Is it ethically acceptable to breed animals, and transgenic animals in particular, with the intention of
using them to provide replacement organs for humans? If so, what conditions or restrictions should
apply? I am aware, incidentally, that before long questions of this kind regarding the acceptability
and ethicality of specific procedures planned with animals and involving the use of biotechnological
techniques (including procedures to be performed for xenotransplantation purposes) are to be
addressed by the Committee on Biotechnology in Animals, which is to be convened in accordance
with Section 69 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act. This committee, which I expect to be able to
begin its work quite soon, will also be responsible for assessing applications for permits to perform
such procedures from various angles and in relation to various disciplines, including ethics.
3
Given that for several years to come expertise in the field of xenotransplantation will remain limited,
how can a considered guiding judgement be made regarding the ethical acceptability of clinical
research involving human subjects before a concrete research protocol has been submitted for
assessment?
4
Taking account both of existing provisions and of legislation presently being prepared, is there an
adequate legal framework for the regulation of xenotransplantation during its development and
implementation? If not, what modifications are required? In my view, particular attention should be
given in this regard not only to the matters addressed in questions 1 to 3, such as the position of the
animals involved, of patients and experimental subjects and of medical professionals, but also to the
position of the institutions concerned and the role of the government in relation to the nature
(including quality and safety), direction, planning, financing and supervision of xenotransplantation.
All legal provisions must, of course, be consistent with any existing or anticipated international
obligations which might be pertinent to xenotransplantation in practice.
If possible, I would like to receive your report by the autumn of 1997. Should the Council consider it
appropriate in view of developments in the field of xenotransplantation, I would be pleased to receive a
brief preliminary report prior to completion of the full document.
The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport
(signed)
E Borst-Eilers
The request for advice
56
Annex
B
The Committee
AJ Dunning, chairman
emeritus professor of cardiology, University of Amsterdam
FWA Brom
ethicist, Catholic University of Brabant, Tilburg, and Utrecht University
F Claas
professor of transplantation immunology, Leiden University
Tj de Cock Buning
biologist/philosopher and professor of ethics, alternatives and history of animal
experimentation, Leiden University
FG Grosveld
professor of molecular cell biology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and member of
the Scientific Advisory Board of Imutran Ltd (Novartis) in the UK
CCE Koning
radiotherapist, Westeinde Hospital, The Hague
RL Marquet
immunologist, Erasmus University Rotterdam
F Moss
lawyer, Royal Dutch Society for the Advancement of Pharmacy, The Hague
ADME Osterhaus
professor of virology, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Utrecht University, and
member of the Safety Advisory Board of Imutran Ltd (Novartis) in the UK
The Committee
57
GG Persijn
medical Director of the Eurotransplant Foundation, Leiden
J Prop
physician, Groningen University Hospital
OT Terpstra
professor of general surgery, Leiden University Hospital
LP the Waal
transplantation immunologist, Blood Transfusion Service Central Laboratory,
Amsterdam
FCB van Wijmen
professor of medical law, University of Maastricht
LFM van Zutphen
professor of laboratory animal science, Utrecht University
PCM de Greeve, advisor
inspector, Chief Veterinary Inspectorate, Rijswijk
GJ Olthof, advisor
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Rijswijk
ECM Keijser, advisor
lawyer, Health Council of the Netherlands, Rijswijk
E van Rongen, scientific secretary
cellular biologist, Health Council of the Netherlands, Rijswijk
The Committee
58